DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 26th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 30th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see Page 6-9, that Fleury fails to disclose “a housing unit including at least a central front-side component, a left front-side component, a right front-side component, and a rear-side component, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically the applicant has argued that the housing of Fleury discloses a single body, and that the components the examiner has relied on cannot be equated to the components described in claim 1, the examiner respectfully asserts that there is no limitation within the claim that the different “components” as described cannot be apart of the same body. Further the examiner is of the opinion that the term “component” is a very broad term and can refer to any part or piece of a body.
Further applicant’s arguments regarding the material of the different components are not persuasive as Fleury discloses wherein the different components of the body can be comprised of different rigidities (body 111 may include material, textile, or fabric, and elasticized portions, in some embodiments some or all of the portions of body 111 are elastic or on an elastic substrate, while other portions or sections are relatively inelastic or rigid, body 111 may be formed from a soft deformable fabric 121 (i.e., rigidities of two components may be different from each other), Paragraph [0165], other reinforcing materials, such as interfacing in an example, may be used to provide rigidity, inelasticity, and/or inflexibility in certain areas of body 111, for example, where components such as bio-signal sensor 20 may be mounted, Paragraph [0171]).
Therefore the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(10/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleury, Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleury, and Claim(s) 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleury in view of Wingeier.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5 and 8-15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “wherein a number of the at least one measurement electrode is at least two or more” should read –whereincompriseselectrodes--.
Claims 5 and 8-15 recite “at least one measurement electrode coming into contact” should read – at least one measurement electrode comes into contact--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(10/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleury et al. (US 20230031613 A1) herein referred to as “Fleury”.
Regarding claim 1, Fleury discloses a brain wave measurement device wearable on a living body head (the wearable device may include bio-signal measuring means, including one sensor to record brain activity, brain activity may be measured through electroencephalography (“EEG”), Paragraph [0143], wearable headset 100, Paragraph [0204], Figures 2A-2J), the brain wave measurement device comprising:
a housing unit including at least a central front-side component (body 111 (housing unit), central front-side component 32, see modified Figure 2J below), a left front-side component (left front-side component, see modified Figure 2J below), a right front-side component (right front-side component, see modified Figure 2J below), and a rear-side component (rear-side component, Figure 2H),
PNG
media_image1.png
703
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the housing unit having a curved shape such that the housing unit is disposed along the living body head from a left temporal region through a frontal region to a right temporal region at a time of wearing (electronics module 32 us curved to generally correspond to the user 10’s head, Paragraph [0217], Figure 2H, right to left temporal regions, Figure 2J);
at least one measurement electrode that is fixed to the rear-side component and comes into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing (bio-signal sensors 20 are disposed on a rear face of body 111, Paragraph [0204], Figure 2H);
and a signal processing unit housed in the housing unit (electronics module 32 wherein signals from the electrodes are sent to the electronics module 32 for processing, Paragraph [0175], Figures 2A-2J),
the signal processing unit processing an electric signal obtained via the at least one measurement electrode (certain storage or processing capabilities may be available on wearable device 100 or various component such as electronics modules 32, Paragraph [0426]), wherein rigidities of at least two components among the central front-side component, the left front-side component, the right front-side component, and the rear-side component are different from each other (body 111 may include material, textile, or fabric, and elasticized portions, in some embodiments some or all of the portions of body 111 are elastic or on an elastic substrate, while other portions or sections are relatively inelastic or rigid, body 111 may be formed from a soft deformable fabric 121 (i.e., rigidities of two components may be different from each other), Paragraph [0165], other reinforcing materials, such as interfacing in an example, may be used to provide rigidity, inelasticity, and/or inflexibility in certain areas of body 111, for example, where components such as bio-signal sensor 20 may be mounted, Paragraph [0171], Figures 10A-10C).
Regarding claim 2, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 1, wherein a number of the at least one measurement electrode is at least two or more (at least two or more electrodes 20, Figure 2H, Paragraph [0204]).
Regarding claim 6, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 1.
Fleury discloses wherein the signal processing unit is disposed between the left front-side component and the rear-side component or between the right front-side component and the rear- side component (electronics module is located between the left front-side component and the rear-side face component of body 111, Figure 2J).
Regarding claim 16, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 2.
Fleury further discloses wherein the signal processing unit is disposed between the left front-side component and the rear-side component or between the right front-side component and the rear-side component (electronics module is located between the left front-side component and the rear-side face component of body 111, Figure 2J).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleury.
Regarding claim 3, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Fleury discloses wherein rigidities of different parts of the body may be varied (body 111 may include material, textile, or fabric, and elasticized portions, in some embodiments some or all of the portions of body 111 are elastic or on an elastic substrate, while other portions or sections are relatively inelastic or rigid, body 111 may be formed from a soft deformable fabric 121 (i.e., rigidities of two components may be different from each other), Paragraph [0165]), but does not specifically disclose wherein rigidities of the left front-side component and the right front-side component are higher than rigidity of the central front-side component. However, the particular rigidity of the material used for the each of the components of the housing presents no novel or unexpected result over the housing taught by Fleury. Choosing a specific rigidity for each of the components solves no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In re Launder, 42 CCPA 886, 222 F.2d 371, 105 USPQ 446 (1955); Flour City Architectural Metals v. Alpana Aluminum Products, Inc., 454 F. 2d 98, 172 USPQ 341 (8th Cir. 1972); National Connector Corp. v. Malco Manufacturing Co., 392 F.2d 766. 157 USPQ 401 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923, 159 USPQ 799 (1968).
Regarding claim 5, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 1.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein a contour of a surface of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing has a circular shape having a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular electrodes to have a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Fleury discloses wherein rigidities of different parts of the body may be varied (body 111 may include material, textile, or fabric, and elasticized portions, in some embodiments some or all of the portions of body 111 are elastic or on an elastic substrate, while other portions or sections are relatively inelastic or rigid, body 111 may be formed from a soft deformable fabric 121 (i.e., rigidities of two components may be different from each other), Paragraph [0165]), but does not specifically disclose wherein rigidities of the left front-side component and the right front-side component are higher than rigidity of the central front-side component. However, the particular rigidity of the material used for the each of the components of the housing presents no novel or unexpected result over the housing taught by Fleury. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particular rigidity of the material used for the each of the components of the housing as choosing a specific rigidity for each of the components solves no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In re Launder, 42 CCPA 886, 222 F.2d 371, 105 USPQ 446 (1955); Flour City Architectural Metals v. Alpana Aluminum Products, Inc., 454 F. 2d 98, 172 USPQ 341 (8th Cir. 1972); National Connector Corp. v. Malco Manufacturing Co., 392 F.2d 766. 157 USPQ 401 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923, 159 USPQ 799 (1968).
Regarding claim 10, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 2.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein a contour of a surface of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing has a circular shape having a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular electrodes to have a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 3.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein a contour of a surface of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing has a circular shape having a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular electrodes to have a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 7.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein a contour of a surface of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing has a circular shape having a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 3.
Fleury further discloses wherein the signal processing unit is disposed between the left front-side component and the rear-side component or between the right front-side component and the rear-side component (electronics module is located between the left front-side component and the rear-side face component of body 111, Figure 2J).
Regarding claim 19, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 5.
Fleury further discloses wherein the signal processing unit is disposed between the left front-side component and the rear-side component or between the right front-side component and the rear-side component (electronics module 32 is located between the left front-side component and the rear-side face component of body 111, Figure 2J).
Regarding claim 20, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 7.
Fleury further discloses wherein the signal processing unit is disposed between the left front-side component and the rear-side component or between the right front-side component and the rear-side component (electronics module is located between the left front-side component and the rear-side face component of body 111, Figure 2J).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleury in view of Wingeier et al. (US 20180256888 A1) herein referred to as “Wingeier”.
Regarding claim 4, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 2.
Fleury wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component.
Wingeier discloses a head apparel assembly including an electrode assembly (Abstract) wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component (two or more electrodes are arranged with a predetermined orientation and spacing with respect to each other, for example the dimensions D1-D6 have values of approximately or exactly 79 mm, 41 mm, 40 mm, 30 mm, 17.5 mm, and 60 mm (wherein D1 and D2 shows center to center and falls within the range, Figures 9A and 9B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fleury to incorporate
the teachings of Wingeier by including wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component. The motivation to do so being to arrange the electrodes with a predetermined orientation and spacing with respect to each other which can function to properly conform to a surface of the user (e.g., forehead of a user) (Wingeier, Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 3.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component.
Wingeier discloses a head apparel assembly including an electrode assembly (Abstract) wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component (two or more electrodes are arranged with a predetermined orientation and spacing with respect to each other, for example the dimensions D1-D6 have values of approximately or exactly 79 mm, 41 mm, 40 mm, 30 mm, 17.5 mm, and 60 mm (wherein D1 and D2 shows center to center and falls within the range, Figures 9A and 9B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fleury to incorporate
the teachings of Wingeier by including wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component. The motivation to do so being to arrange the electrodes with a predetermined orientation and spacing with respect to each other which can function to properly conform to a surface of the user (e.g., forehead of a user) (Wingeier, Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Fleury discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 7.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component.
Wingeier discloses a head apparel assembly including an electrode assembly (Abstract) wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component (two or more electrodes are arranged with a predetermined orientation and spacing with respect to each other, for example the dimensions D1-D6 have values of approximately or exactly 79 mm, 41 mm, 40 mm, 30 mm, 17.5 mm, and 60 mm (wherein D1 and D2 shows center to center and falls within the range, Figures 9A and 9B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fleury to incorporate
the teachings of Wingeier by including wherein centers of respective surfaces of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing are separated to left and right from each other by 40 mm or more and 90 mm or less along a shape of the rear-side component. The motivation to do so being to arrange the electrodes with a predetermined orientation and spacing with respect to each other which can function to properly conform to a surface of the user (e.g., forehead of a user) (Wingeier, Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Fleury in view of Wingeier discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 4.
However Fleury in view of Wingeier does not explicitly disclose wherein a contour of a surface of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing has a circular shape having a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the circular electrodes to have a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Fleury in view of Wingeier discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 8.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein a contour of a surface of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing has a circular shape having a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the circular electrodes to have a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Fleury in view of Wingeier discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 9.
However Fleury does not explicitly disclose wherein a contour of a surface of the at least one measurement electrode coming into contact with the frontal region at the time of wearing has a circular shape having a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the circular electrodes to have a diameter of 10 mm to 25 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Fleury in view of Wingeier discloses the brain wave measurement device according to claim 4.
Fleury further discloses wherein the signal processing unit is disposed between the left front-side component and the rear-side component or between the right front-side component and the rear-side component (electronics module is located between the left front-side component and the rear-side face component of body 111, Figure 2J).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dana Stumpfoll whose telephone number is (703)756-4669. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm (CT), M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights